SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in determining the tax payable including interest Rs. 60,06,68,444/- without adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

depreciation on the same. 7.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred disallowing the foreign remittance made towards R&D Services availed from Dr. Reddy's Research & Development B.V. (formerly known as Octoplus B.V.) and Support services avalled from Dr Reddy's Laboratories Inc USA under section

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

144C(3) read with Section 144B of the Act.\n4.\nThe learned PCIT is not justified in invoking revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the\nAct when the essential conditions for invoking the aforesaid section did not exist.\n5.\nThe learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in considering the matter w.r.t claim of\ndeduction under section 801A

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 10AA of the Act does not explicitly provide the time line for realization of export proceeds. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that

SSNC FINTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

8.\nFurther, the Id. AO/TPO/DRP erred in law\nand in facts of the case modifying the filter of extra-\nordinary events and rejecting the filter of inadequate\nbusiness segment information.\n2:9.\nThe Id. AO/TPO/DRP erred in selecting the\ncompanies only if the data pertaining to FY 2019-20 is\navailable in the public databases.\n2:10. The Id. AO/TPO/DRP

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

144C of the Act which is bad in law, arbitrary, contrary to facts, law, and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed for the following reasons: a) Satisfaction of the JCIT was not obtained before initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. b) No evidence of any new tangible material has been referred

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act dated 29 July 2022 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (the Ld. AO) is perverse, erroneous on facts and bad in law to the extent detrimental to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

depreciation schedule has to be treated as capital loss and cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Further, while processing the return of income, impairment loss of 3 Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited Rs.3,02,45,860/- was added back and the request of the assessee for rectification of the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), assessee filed this appeal. ITA-TP No. 463/Hyd/2022 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in providing Information Technology Enabled Services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). During the financial year 2016-17, assessee acquired entire shareholding of SNL Financials (India) Private

S&P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF SNL FINANCIAL (I) PVT LTD),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

144C (13) of the Act was passed on 17/02/2014 making an addition of Rs. 3,05,39,702/- as per the adjustment suggested by the Ld. TPO by order dated 03/02/2014. 4. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal noticed that there is a conflict in the stand taken

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

144C(5) of the Act. ITA-TP No. 1860/Hyd/2019 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “A. General 1. The subject order of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) / Ld Assessing Officer (AO) is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case in respect of the following grounds: B. Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds (i) Corporate Guarantee

AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

144C of the Act dated 18th September, 2021, the TPO/AO proposed an adjustment of Page 3 of 32 Rs.22,11,24,119/- u/s 92CA with regard to corporate guarantee fees adopting average rate of 1.8%, stated to have been fixed by Indian bankers for financial guarantees. Against the proposed adjustment in the draft order, assessee filed objections in Form

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

144C(3) and 144B was passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 28.06.2021, making an addition of Rs.2,26,82,071/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment. 4. Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act and issued notice to the assessee on 08.03.2024. The Ld. PCIT recorded that the Ld. AO during scrutiny

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

144C on 26.02.2020 and determined the total income of the appellant company at Rs.1446,55,55,275/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant company preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contested all additions made by the Assessing Officer including TP adjustment as suggested by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act, disallowance

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

144C and 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – “DRP”, Bangalore-1’s for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2014-15 on the following grounds : Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa